It's pending on MS giving them more money
Assassin's Creed "Parity": Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One
- Thread starter Steverulez
- Start date
- Status
LOL @ we need consoles or there won't be cutting edge graphics because no money is made on PC
Crysis 1 was a PC only title, that wasn't matched by consoles for about 5 years.
Crysis 1 sold better than Crysis 2 and Crysis 3, which were released on these platforms that this industry wouldn't exist without.
Crytek is about to end up like THQ since they shifted their focus from PC to consoles
but yep. PC can't sustain this market. without consoles there is no industry.
#SaveTheConsoles #PCisforspeadsheets
Crysis 1 was a PC only title, that wasn't matched by consoles for about 5 years.
Crysis 1 sold better than Crysis 2 and Crysis 3, which were released on these platforms that this industry wouldn't exist without.
Crytek is about to end up like THQ since they shifted their focus from PC to consoles
but yep. PC can't sustain this market. without consoles there is no industry.
#SaveTheConsoles #PCisforspeadsheets
martino
Member
understood.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
Maybe because they weren't good games? Or people were over the OMGraphicsbutsamegameplayaseveryothergame. Also... why did they shift to consoles hmm? Hmmm?
But seriously, your points aren't bullet-proof.
Pennywise83
Banned
You don't have to commit fraud to be anti-consumer. Just acting in a manner that isn't in your customer's best interests is anti-consumer. Now, you can argue whether their decision to be anti-consumer was justifiable in any way, but then you'd probably have to know something about the reasons behind their decisions, which you claim are unimportant.
I think it's important whether the behaviour is fraudolent or not. They did say the game is going to be 900p on PS4; they don't advertise it as it's 1080p, when it's not. You as an informed consumer know it, and you can decide to buy it or not (with buying another game instead, or nothing as outside options).
Being anti-consumer has a very specific meaning. Classifying what is anti-consumer is of course more difficult. But if you apply your own definition of what is anti-consumer, then every company that does not provide you the highest attainable level of quality is doing something against you as a consumer. Then, even releasing an average game is anti-consumer; not exploiting every feature of the platform is anti-consumer; not including a paper manual is anti-consumer; etc.
I don't think that is what happened to Crytek. They made generic ass games in Crysis 2 and 3 as well as Ryse, and the sales of those games dictated their failure on both PC and console. The Far Cry team has proven on both PC and 10 year old consoles that if you want to take the Crysis formula and put it some place, you can do that if you have it in mind. It is crytek's own fault for their situation now, no one else's.
Crysis wasn't exactly valid in this case. Plus consoles were much bigger even before PC gaming was starting to become big during last generation.
You can't deny the truth, bro. Without consoles, PC gaming wouldn't be as big as it is right now.
GeneralArrow
Neo Member
Well, if you want to gain press around a series that wasn't really being marketed anymore then any press is good press I guess. This just reeks of foul play by ubisoft. I mean, seriously??? Pretty sure most of us were over this whole 900 vs 1080p fiasco anyway and starting to enjoy our systems and the games coming out on them.
I know this has been quoted a bunch of times, but bravo. It's really disheartening to see whenever a publisher or developer get called out by gamers for shady, incompetent, or illogical practices, we see a chorus of fellow game players and the press wave off such concerns and call people speaking up as "entitled" or "whiners". You may enjoy eating whatever crap the industry puts on your plate, but don't disparage others for wanting to have something better, especially when it's their money paying for it.
Far too many consumers just allow whatever industry they're engage in to walk all over them, and I really don't understand why.
Crysis sequels kinda being nothing special beyond visuals had nothing to do with it.
Neuromancer
Member
What's your source on this?
Crysis also came out on 360/PS3. But if you're saying Crysis on PC outsold Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 on console in an equivalent period of time I'd be pretty impressed. I wouldn't disbelieve it though, Crysis was all anyone was talking about for a while.
Not sure why you're so hung up on the legal definition of the term "anti-consumer". Legally, the X1 online DRM and no trading in games measures were fine, but in the minds of the consumer, it was an anti-consumer measure. Shouldn't it be up to the consumer itself to determine what is anti-consumer or not?
Legally, wireless companies constantly fucking us over with bullshit fees and price hikes isn't anti-consumer, but in principle it is.
Forced parity, especially through coercion by MS, IS anti-consumer no matter which way you slice it. Many people bought the PS4 because it's the more powerful console, I don't know how you can say it's not anti-consumer to forcibly nullify that choice of buying the more powerful console to get the best looking version of games on consoles.
Windom Earle
Member
I think Crysis 2 was actually good, the console versions were just terrible technically... Playing it again on PC with all the bells and whistles at 100fps was quite fun. But I know I am probably alone in that opinion.
What saddens me most about Crytek is that C1 still has not been surpassed in the open world shooter genre IMO. Really stupid that they allowed Ubisoft to take that market from them. Far Cry 3 was decent but it does not feel open world, there is no true exploration like in Crysis. Just a map with shitty collectables.
Whether they downgraded the PS4 version or upgraded the XB1 version is irrelevant. The point is their reasoning for locking in the specs is so that one game doesn't look or run better than the other -- even though the hardware is not identical and one console clearly performs better than the other one.
Why aren't developers implementing asynchronous computation with the GPU in the PS4 yet? Lack of tools/SDK/whatever? That seems like something developers can do to overcome any CPU limitations.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
PSA
on't forget that Unity is on a 24/7 dev cycle between ten studios, the development progresses much faster than typical games.shadowsdarknes
Member
At launch pretty much zero (especially if there actually is a parity clause at launch in the marketing deal that MS has made with Ubisoft).
But if Sony jumps in (likely, after this public debacle) there might a patch after the release date.
Doesn't Knack use a good amount of GPU compute for the physics? Either way, its extra work and not as simple as porting code to the GPU to get everything to work the same. Something that exclusives probably will leverage, multiplats not so much.
1. Devs ARE doing that. Infamous does it for every particle you see in the game, The tomorrow children does it for lighting UC4 does it for skin shaders, KZSF does it for job compiling and Deep down as well is doing it with the water, flame, hair, and debris physics.
2. But you should not expect multiplat devs to use it because they arent going to make different things on console
Devilinthiscity
Member
Neuromancer
Member
I imagine they needed more time and were still working on the game's performance after it went gold, but before its release date.
SeventhSon
Member
How much money did MS pay for the parity?
Called it!
vpance
Member
It didn't have to be, but in light of this situation it seems likely that there was a parity scenario back then too. It's just that this time some parties involved are watching more closely.
DeviantBoi
Member
I wonder if MS is gonna send any code monkeys to try and help Ubi get ACU up to 1080p for that day one patch.
Might not be pretty, but they wouldn't want a game they're paying to market to look better on the other console.
Might not be pretty, but they wouldn't want a game they're paying to market to look better on the other console.
mentallyinept
Banned
Ah! I'll go ahead and quote myself for this one:
Damn... I guess I was wrong. It was Option 3. Congrats to TheDangerMan and Dinjooh for guessing correctly!
Ah, good to know, thanks. Gives me hope for an even prettier inFAMOUS installment down the road as techniques improve.
NickFire
Member
I'll bet you that the box says 1080p even if its native 900p, so for anyone who doesn't read their press releases they will be duped. But that aside, you're right. They are not ant-consumer. They are merely anti-2/3-of-their-consumers, as PS4 outsold the One about 2-1 now, but they wont reach PS4's potential to spare the 1/3 from horrible debates and stuff.
the back of the box doesn't have native rendering resolution. the game outputs 1080p, so thats whats on the box
Pennywise83
Banned
When the debate is whether or not this practice can be seen as anti-consumer, and whether people have the right or not to act against it, I do think the legal definition plays a role. If Ubisoft's behaviour is just annoying, then consumers can protest as much as they want, but the company does not have any obligation in fixing the issue. As in the SimCity debacle, EA eventually implemented an offline mode because of a quite vocal consumers' uproar, which led to bad word-of-mouth; the company, though, was not obliged to do anything. There are practices that have been widely contested in the past, but are now basically standard, such as DLC, constant software updates, episodic released, etc.
As for the examples you mention, you are not totally right. MS not allowing the resale of used games was clearly anti-consumer, and against the so-called first-sale doctrine, at the basis of the copyright law in the US. Wireless companies have been under investigation by antitrust authorities more than once. As for those contracts you mention exist between MS and companies, it is highly debatable; it all depends on how much companies benefit from it; if, let's say, parifying development allows companies to reduce costs and being more efficient and competitive, then it's not anti-consumer not even anti-competitive, but quite the opposite.
SuperSonic1305
Member
Maybe it's because Crysis 2 and 3 are bad games?
nelsonroyale
Member
UBI and MS PR really are a match made in heaven/hell.
NickFire
Member
I am well aware why it says it, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Whether its Sony, MS, EA, or Ubi, I think its fraud to list up-scaled resolution unless the resolution is clearly labeled as such, with the native listed side by side.
The truth is that compared to what's actually big on PC: WoW, LoL, DOTA ect. most of the ports of AAA console games are irrelevant.
LoL alone has more concurrent users than people own an xbox one.
gaming as a whole has grown a lot along with pc gaming, consoles ports weren't that important to that growth, nevermind that franchises like COD, battlefield, elder scrolls ect. originated on PC in the first place
This is bad news. If having so much AI is stopping it from going 1080p, I really hope they don't reduce the AI count to please some of you guys. There is now a petition for Ubisoft to make the game 1080p 60fps on PS4. That's stupid and doesn't address the actual issue which is parity.
GAF mods are actually all over this thread like a fat kid is on chocolate
yeah bad analogy. Still, first post ban should be a record, unless it was an alt that got sacrificed.its listed next to other things like "online required" or "supports up to 4 controllers"
the back of the box isn't about telling you the details of the game's development, its for showing what the product is compatible with
I don't think anyone is claiming that they have an obligation to fix the issue. But people are rightfully protesting(many, like myself, by not purchasing the game in question) and making their opinion be heard, the opinion being that they won't support Ubi purposely gimping their games on one console for the sake of parity and "avoiding debates".
Really? Maybe you should let MS know that as they were going full steam ahead with that plan under the impression that it was legally sound. One can make the argument that the first sale doctrine would not have applied in the case of the original X1 as MS was allowing certain privileged resellers the ability to accept trade ins and selling used games. Doesn't change the fact that it was still anti-consumer.
Those wireless companies may have been and are being investigated, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is illegal. There is nothing illegal about hiking fees and monthly rates unless companies are in collusion to do so. Again, doesn't change the fact that it's inherently anti-consumer.
Let's hope we won't get some Watch-Dogs'esk parity on PC as well. I could do without downgrades, thank you very much.
Wasn't there something going on with The Division in that regard? Thanks for making us PC-Gamers martyrs because of the consoles, Ubisoft - maybe you'd want to relieve me of the extra-costs I invest in PC-Hardware the next time around, because we're all so close and samy anyways. ;-)
(That's supposed to be ironic - I know I did a bad job. I'm enjoying my beers right now)
Wasn't there something going on with The Division in that regard? Thanks for making us PC-Gamers martyrs because of the consoles, Ubisoft - maybe you'd want to relieve me of the extra-costs I invest in PC-Hardware the next time around, because we're all so close and samy anyways. ;-)
(That's supposed to be ironic - I know I did a bad job. I'm enjoying my beers right now)
soul creator
Member
It gets kinda weird since by this standard, pretty much every piece of PC or mobile software has been anti-consumer for ages now. I don't see a big used PC software market existing, especially since the advent of cd-keys, online license registration, and associating software with user accounts. First-sale doctrine sure hasn't stopped Valve and other PC software publishers (who still sell discs that have one-time use licenses that effectively can't ever be resold) for the past 10 years, and beyond some court cases in Europe, I haven't seen much challenge to this concept.
And if we're sticking to legalese, couldn't one argue that MS wasn't being "anti-consumer" either, since they could never prevent you from selling whatever disc you buy. But they could prevent the license from working on another console, similar to PC games. It might be a silly technical difference, but I suppose silly technical differences matter when it comes to legal terms
That said, I do agree that "in spirit" you could say there was a violation of first-sale doctrine. And I would of course welcome further pushes or legal updates to enforce things like consumer license transfers.
I do agree though that "anti-consumer" has become a bit of a buzzword over the past year or so, and seems to now just be used whenever someone is talking about a product they don't like, as opposed to a product that defrauds the customer in some way.
Not read the 100's of posts saying the res won't effect the AI?
KillerMan91
Member
Crysis wasn't matched by other PC titles in years either because there are so few big budget PC exclusives nowadays that target high end graphics. Also a reason why i think that in a way PS4/Xbone are going to keep up withs PCs for a while because first party studios of Sony and MS can focus on one platform and have pretty much unlimited budget. Graphics are more about budget than power nowadays.
Your CPU does NOT draw the pixels on-screen affecting resolution, im sure it has been said a million times, PS4's GPU 32rops etc, is more than capable of native 1080p, it was designed with it in mind.
- Status